September 16, 2015

The Dialectical Progression of History

History is accumulative. Our history is the most pivotal determinant of our future. In other words, what happens now is directly
interconnected to what will occur in the near and long-term future. The
rhetorical concepts of “fate” and “destiny” are simply non-existent in a world
that is governed by the principles of science. This applies to the natural
sciences but also characterizes the social sciences as the dynamics of
political and economic systems throughout the globe are highly dependent on
history itself.

History is integral for
understanding our increasingly intricate society. It lays the foundation for
explaining certain trends and events that we witness throughout our lives and
therefore, can be fully utilized to predict and shape our own future and the
future of our planet. When speaking of sociological disturbances and
distributions of wealth or even modern-day political and economic systems,
history plays an essential role in explaining humanity's societal and economic
development and progress.

This compelling correlation is
clearly demonstrated by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels’ theory of Historical Materialism. This particular
methodology was developed from dialectical idealismand was created and used by Georg Hegel, a German philosopher who
heavily influenced both Marx and Engels and their conceptions of history.
Hegel's dialectic (historical process of change) can be defined as based on the
ongoing opposition or conflict between two interacting forces. His dialectic
can be divided into three parts: the proposition or thesis (e.g., Ancien
Régime), the contradictory proposition or antithesis (e.g., the French
bourgeoisie and proletariat) and the synthesis of the first two parts (e.g.,
the French Revolution). In other words, the contradiction between the thesis
and antithesis is resolved by a synthesis or "new thesis", and the
process is repeated.

Hegelian Idealism:

The dialectical method for
understanding the movement of history thoroughly illustrates the unity and
conflict between antagonistic ideas or concepts and their reconciliation,
resulting in another cycle of conflicts. Hegel used this systematic approach to
interpret the whole of history pertaining to politics, philosophy, religion and
other disciplines. Philosophy and thought are central to understanding the
dialectical formula as Hegelian Idealism demonstrates that historical
development and consciousness advance through the conflict between ideas. That
is, the opposing ideas, beliefs, views of the world and of oneself and the
means for realizing them throughout history have determined societal existence
and reality itself. This mind over matter approach for understanding historical
development explains that ideals shape the material world and the conflict and
unity of opposites within society.

Hegel’s historical
dialectic was purely based on “modes of consciousness” as he explained that
throughout history, freedom of consciousness and individual subjectivity had
progressed and accumulated. Using his dialectical formula, he separated the
whole of history into different stages or “modes of consciousness” in which
virtue (the human capacity for reasoning) accumulates throughout history. His
notion of virtue and reason is defined by people acquiring their own freedom of
consciousness and therefore being able to make their own decisions freely in a
liberal and modernized nation-state. This dialectical transition, driven by
numerous ideological and socio-political clashes throughout history, strives for
the freedom of mankind as the ultimate and final aim.

Modes of Consciousness:

Ancient civilizations

Serfdom and Middle Ages

Modern Society

- Only the despot and
state leaders have freedom of consciousness

- Freedom of
consciousness given to royalty, nobles and knights but is however severely
restricted to the masses

- Freedom of
consciousness is ‘supposedly’ universal

- "Loose ends"
of Hegel's dialectic could not address the problems of poverty and
unemployment

The Materialist
Interpretation of the Dialectical Formula:

Marx
and Engels envisioned a very similar paradigm to explain historical transition
and accumulation. The only difference between the Hegelian and Marxist
dialectical interpretations is that Marx and Engels had taken the Hegelian methodology
out of its metaphysical context and fused it with their own philosophical
theory known as DialecticalMaterialism. This Marxist epistemology
attests that life and existence are purely based on material processes and
unlike the idealism of Hegel's philosophy, adheres to a matter over mind
framework. Marx "turned Hegel on his head", attesting that material
conditions not only shape philosophy and thought but also the social fabric of
society.

Dialectical materialism pertains to
the evolution of the natural and material world and the idea of matter being in
constant motion. All forms of matter
are created, develop or grow, and finally perish due to their internal
contradictions. Following a dialectical process, matter is constantly changing,
serving as the material basis for all of reality.

In Dialectics of Nature, Frederick Engels explained that the
dialectical movement of matter is clearly applicable to the social sciences.
The understanding and theory behind historical and societal development was
defined by Marx as "the materialist conception of history" and by Marxists
today as Historical Materialism.
Economics serves as the base for this dialectical progress because it is the
economic structure of society which generates the material conditions and
requirements of life. In other words, the means of production (what we use to
produce goods and services) and the relations of production (social
relationships – class relations - that people must enter into in order to
produce goods and services) determine and produce the material things needed
for human survival.

Instead of modes of
consciousness, historical materialism explains history as a series of “modes of
production” with the inception of each mode being completely dependent on the
presence and failure of the former. The modes analyzed by Marx and Engels were
made clearly distinguishable by their forms of means of production, means of
subsistence and division of labour. The following characteristics portray the
type of economies functioning in each mode and how they’ve evolved and
progressed throughout the time of human civilization. The materialism of Marx
is purely scientific and empirical (treating economics and society both
scientifically) and asserts that the specific economy functioning in each mode
of production makes up the real foundation for the superstructure of society as
a whole (legal, social and political structures). This means that throughout
history, everything within societal existence was dependent on the coexisting
economic structure of society of that time period. It is this economic
foundation (means of production + relations of production) that shapes the
superstructure of society and the superstructure, in turn, maintains and
legitimates the economic base. In A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), Marx emphasized
this correlation very closely.

Spiraling Class
Struggle:

History
is simply a train of different forms of social activity generated by and
implementing modes of production. With economic forces being the motor of
history, it is the ongoing conflict between social classes that drives
historical and social development. The different classes and social hierarchies
existing throughout history and even today stem from their corresponding means
and relations of production.Modes of Production:

Primitive Communism

Ancient civilizations

Serfdom and Middle Ages

Capitalism (Modern
Society)

-Dictatorship of the
Proletariat

-Socialism

Communism

-Hunter and gatherer
societies

- Means of production,
means of subsistence and division of labour extremely simplistic

- Classless and stateless

- Means of production,
means of subsistence and division of labour
simplistic

- Social hierarchy is
complex (patricians, landowners,

freemen, slaves, etc.)

- Means of production,
means of subsistence and division of labour
simplistic

- Means of production,
means of subsistence and division of labour increasingly complex

- Mainly two contending
classes (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie)

-Bourgeois society and
capitalist system overthrown

- Only one class left
(proletariat) eventually owning the means of production

In The Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl
Marx asserted that all of history is defined by class struggle and that
humanity's advancement depended on this constant opposition between the
oppressed and the oppressor. The capitalist system, which he obviously was most
concerned with, was tending to narrow down the number of classes to only two:
proletariat (the working-class) and the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class). In
order for humanity to progress further and class struggle to be finally
resolved, the dialectical transition to the communist mode of production must
occur. By overthrowing the bourgeoisie and the capitalist state, the working
class can embark on the proletarian revolution therefore establishing self-rule
and governance (dictatorship of the proletariat) and subsequently, the public
ownership of the means of production (socialism). Only after the collectivist
principles of economic equality, social justice and peoples' democracy are
firmly entrenched into the social fabric of society can humanity position
itself to enter the classless and stateless epoch of communism.